Most Americans "pro-life."

[fossten]

hrmwrm, that is by far the dumbest argument you've ever made. And THAT'S SAYING SOMETHING.

Please continue trying to equivocate unborn babies with capital criminals or battlefield enemies. It's amusing how obtuse you can be.

 

[shagdrum]

read his words.

"Life is either all sacred or none sacred."
any deviance would make this a lie, regardless of circumstance. yours is the false analogy.

If it is a false analogy, the you can explain how it is. But of course, you cannot, with any degree of credibility do that. You are simple throwing the accusation back at me with no basis in reality. I am not even making an analogy.

Life is sacred but that doesn't mean there are justifiable times to to take a life. However, those times are exceptions to the rule and need to be justified. Killing in self defense is very justifiable. Maybe you should stop thinking in absolutes.

It is funny to watch you squirm like this. Trying to distort anything to smear and demonize anyone you disagree with. It is like some belligerent little child throwing a temper tantrum. Feel free to keep hanging yourself.

 

[ford nut]

It isn't so much a "which is right", but "which is the lesser evil". Very few people who are pro-choice view abortion as anything more then a necessary evil at best.



What you end up having are competing values; "choice" as a social value and the right to life. The question is which one trumps and in which instances. Most people would generally say that a right to life trumps a right to choice in general and exceptions to that need to be justified. That is why you get arguments that life does not begin at conception. By discrediting the view that a fetus is a life, the debate between which value should trump and having to justify choice trumping life in the area of abortion is avoided.


The court has ruled that "choice" trumps (through equivocation of the term "due process" in the Constitution). The better solution would be to put it up for a vote in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. Either enshrine a right to have an abortion in some fashion in the Constitution, or specify where protections of life already guaranteed in the Constitution first come into play.

That gets into the complicated part.
I was just trying to point out there is no simple answer on this issue.

I can see how conservatives would like to bring it to a vote after seeing this Gallup Poll.

 

[ford nut]

I'm against abortion but believe that a woman has the right to choose..

It's between her and God and none of your GD business ....

You conservatives should figure out what the hell you want the government to do? Either get the hell out of our lives or interfere with them ... make up your mind ..

I think the same way.
I don't feel I have the right to tell some one else what to do because of what I believe.
History proves that if abortion was outlawed it would just go under ground.
Just like prostitution.

 

[shagdrum]

History proves that if abortion was outlawed it would just go under ground.
Just like prostitution.

Outlawing something serves a number of purposes; "enacting justice against those who break the law" and "acting as a deterrent against that activity" are two of those purposes. No law, in functioning as a deterrent, will eliminate an activity completely, but it will reduce it.

The fact that we still have murders today when it is outlawed doesn't mean that outlawing murder is foolish or that the outlawing of murder doesn't function as a deterrent.

 

[fossten]

I think the same way.
I don't feel I have the right to tell some one else what to do because of what I believe.

Using that logic, if a man jumped out of the bushes around your house and started beating up your wife, do you feel that you have the right to tell him to stop because you believe he shouldn't do that? What if it was the neighbor's daughter getting raped, do you believe the law should protect her? What if the daughter was an infant and was being sliced into little pieces by some guy with a scalpel? Do you believe the law should protect the infant?

 

[ford nut]

Outlawing something serves a number of purposes; "enacting justice against those who break the law" and "acting as a deterrent against that activity" are two of those purposes. No law, in functioning as a deterrent, will eliminate an activity completely, but it will reduce it.

The fact that we still have murders today when it is outlawed doesn't mean that outlawing murder is foolish or that the outlawing of murder doesn't function as a deterrent.

I don't doubt that outlawing it would reduce the number, but by how much is anybodys guess.
I was Just saying it will never stop.
People who want to abort will still do it.
Prostitution is a good example, if you want it you can find it.

 

[fossten]

I don't doubt that outlawing it would reduce the number, but by how much is anybodys guess.
I was Just saying it will never stop.
People who want to abort will still do it.
Prostitution is a good example, if you want it you can find it.

It's not 'anybody's guess,' it's obvious that if murder were not illegal, it would happen more often. Do you even know how many abortions were performed last year in the US? The fact that our government sanctions and even pays for abortion on demand puts us on very bad moral ground.

 

[Calabrio]

It's not 'anybody's guess,' it's obvious that if murder were not illegal, it would happen more often. Do you even know how many abortions were performed last year in the US? The fact that our government sanctions and even pays for abortion on demand puts us on very bad moral ground.

Fossten is bringing up a really important point-
Is it right to have the government not fund, directly and indirectly, policies and organizations that advice and perform this action.

I'd argue that it's wrong, for several reasons.
First- there's the moral issue.
But more importantly, why the hell is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT involved in spending our money on these matters?

 

[ford nut]

Fossten is bringing up a really important point-
Is it right to have the government not fund, directly and indirectly, policies and organizations that advice and perform this action.

I'd argue that it's wrong, for several reasons.
First- there's the moral issue.
But more importantly, why the hell is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT involved in spending our money on these matters?

It might be a good point but it is lost if not explained.

Does he mean the federal Medicaid law?

Planned Parenthood getting government funded grants?

 

[foxpaws]

This actually has more to do with the rather flawed survey - it doesn't state some basic information that is needed to really use these results. It doesn't state republican and democrat 'mix' that was polled - if it was heavily republican, I would like to know... Also it doesn't categorize its age groups - once again, if the survey was heavily biased to the 50+ category, it would show me certain things.

This survey actually tells me very little, since I don't know the demos it was pulling this from. And I couldn't find it at Gallup either... Maybe Cal, you have a better link to get me to the raw data.

 

[fossten]

This actually has more to do with the rather flawed survey - it doesn't state some basic information that is needed to really use these results. It doesn't state republican and democrat 'mix' that was polled - if it was heavily republican, I would like to know... Also it doesn't categorize its age groups - once again, if the survey was heavily biased to the 50+ category, it would show me certain things.

This survey actually tells me very little, since I don't know the demos it was pulling this from. And I couldn't find it at Gallup either... Maybe Cal, you have a better link to get me to the raw data.

It isn't a political poll. It's a public survey.

 

[Calabrio]

It's a Gallup poll and it's echoing the results of other recent polls as well.
And I think was done by CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll.

 

[shagdrum]

if you weren't so demeaning and ignorant, you might have a reply.
just what does "life is sacred" mean then?
there are no exceptions. it means to not kill or harm.
and i wasn't the one thinking in absolutes. i merely pointed it out. absolutes don't allow for grey.

I am the one being demeaning? Yes, you are an angel.

I am only reflecting the rudeness that you treat me and my position with. However, when you are not calling me and @$$hole or a dip$h!t, you are mischaracterizing what I said and/or flat out ignoring whole part (both of which you are doing here). The fact that you don't even attempt offer an honest, decent post to add to the discussion proves that.

You accused me of making a false analogy solely because I accused you of that. I never made an analogy, so there was no way I could be making a false analogy.

You treat me and my opinion with respect and consideration, you will get it in return. You continue smearing, distorting, lying, harassing and intentionally attempting to dodge and deflect any responsibility for your irrational petulance and belligerence, I will treat you with the contempt your actions warrant. The ball is, and always has been, in your court.

 

[TheDude]

Let's be honest, there needs to be a middle ground. All this all or nothing isn't going to logically work.

Personally, I'd like to have the amount of time an abortion can be performed reduced, while the embryo is still all but undeveloped. IMO, if a woman doesn't want/can't be a mother, she should be able to decide that in the few handful of weeks; not months.

 

[fossten]

Let's be honest, there needs to be a middle ground. All this all or nothing isn't going to logically work.

Personally, I'd like to have the amount of time an abortion can be performed reduced, while the embryo is still all but undeveloped. IMO, if a woman doesn't want/can't be a mother, she should be able to decide that in the few handful of weeks; not months.

Bologna. Either it's a life or it isn't. Come on, grow a backbone.

 

[TheDude]

Bologna. Either it's a life or it isn't. Come on, grow a backbone.

Don't eat that. It's life, does it have the same rights and is it just like a human, that's the argument. Nothing to do with being a coward, taking the pragmatic approach.

If we go by your terms, then what do we do with cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in immediate danger?

 

[Calabrio]

It might be a good point but it is lost if not explained.

Does he mean the federal Medicaid law?

Planned Parenthood getting government funded grants?

It's an odd hypocrisy, things that demonstrate a lack of moral responsibility are tolerated when it comes to federal funding, but once there's a moral judgment to made on the subject, knee-jerk activists suddenly manufacturer some "church/state" issue. Decisions guided by the moral teachings of a church are not a violation of the 1st amendment.

So if you support federal funding of abortion, it's o.k.
but to oppose it is to be an exercise of your morality and an imposition of your religion, thus it's wrong and to be dismissed.

But that entire debate should be moot anyway. The federal government's authority should not extend into this arena. Where does the federal government get the right to spend money on issues such as this one? They've ceased that power and responsibility by reinterpreting what they like call a "living constitution."

Arguably, a local or state government could make that kind of decision, but the federal government does not- or at least shouldn't be able to.

...but specifically regarding your post, Planned Parenthood used to received about $50M a year from the federal government directly, and another $50M through Medicaid. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the number has gone up in recent years.

 

[shagdrum]

i have just taken yours' and fosstens' lead here. when i first came into this section of the forum it's been rampant. the ball has been in YOUR court, and i was just volleying back. you should go back about 60 pages of threads here and look. when i said i call myself atheist, the attacks started AGAINST me first. so, i took that style and owned it. now you wanna whine about personal attacks. any time your ready to cease and desist, i'm ready as well.

Don't give me that crap. You came in here originally perpetuating false stereotypes of people of faith in general and Christians specifically. We called you on it and pointed out how it was false. You started getting more and more indignant, rude and out and out hostile toward us. Rather then turn the other cheek, we treated you the same. However, the big difference is, and always has been, that we don't stoop to dishonest and deceptive means to express that. We always gave a reasonable counter to what you were saying. You, on the other hand, notoriously made (and still do) fallacious argument aimed more and more at smearing us as well as proving your point, or disproving ours. After we called you on that, you started with your infamous "wall 'o' text" posts.

You were the one who started this and who ultimately perpetuates it through your vindictiveness and dishonesty in your blatant smears, fallacious arguments and "wall 'o' text" posts.

The ball is, and always has been, in your court on this. Stop lying and trying to mischaracterize it as something it is not.

 

[fossten]

hrmwrm = troll. He's STILL trying to make the thread about himself.

 

[fossten]

Don't eat that. It's life, does it have the same rights and is it just like a human, that's the argument. Nothing to do with being a coward, taking the pragmatic approach.

If we go by your terms, then what do we do with cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in immediate danger?

I've already answered this issue. You might bother to scroll up.

Guess how many cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother there actually are in proportion to the actual number of abortions performed? Less than 1 percent. You're trying to use the exception to justify the rule now.

Gloria Steinem admitted back in 1985 that to make abortion legal in those cases would be forcing women to lie. Norma McCorvey (try google) made up a story about being gang raped at a circus so she could get an abortion. Now she admits she lied.

Instead of encouraging her to kill her child, we should be showing love, compassion, and concern for the mother and her baby, whether she chooses to have the child or give it up for adoption. Killing the child is not necessary in any case. Rape is violent, but when the mother kills her child she is committing a second act of violence, toward her own child.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

i have just taken yours' and fosstens' lead here. when i first came into this section of the forum it's been rampant. the ball has been in YOUR court, and i was just volleying back. you should go back about 60 pages of threads here and look. when i said i call myself atheist, the attacks started AGAINST me first. so, i took that style and owned it. now you wanna whine about personal attacks. any time your ready to cease and desist, i'm ready as well.

I co-sign this post.

It's an odd hypocrisy, things that demonstrate a lack of moral responsibility are tolerated when it comes to federal funding, but once there's a moral judgment to made on the subject, knee-jerk activists suddenly manufacturer some "church/state" issue. Decisions guided by the moral teachings of a church are not a violation of the 1st amendment.

So if you support federal funding of abortion, it's o.k.
but to oppose it is to be an exercise of your morality and an imposition of your religion, thus it's wrong and to be dismissed.

But that entire debate should be moot anyway. The federal government's authority should not extend into this arena. Where does the federal government get the right to spend money on issues such as this one? They've ceased that power and responsibility by reinterpreting what they like call a "living constitution."

Arguably, a local or state government could make that kind of decision, but the federal government does not- or at least shouldn't be able to.

...but specifically regarding your post, Planned Parenthood used to received about $50M a year from the federal government directly, and another $50M through Medicaid. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the number has gone up in recent years.

This involves women's lives. I would like this funded. I dont consider fetus' to be alive, so it's a non-issue for me in those sectors.

Why did you bring up how much it costs to go through with abortions?

 

[fossten]

This involves women's lives. I would like this funded. I dont consider fetus' to be alive, so it's a non-issue for me in those sectors.

Many people also don't consider blacks to be human. Are they right?

What scientific research did you do to come to the conclusion that fetuses aren't alive? And at what point in their gestation do they suddenly 'become alive?'

Please share.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Many people also don't consider blacks to be human. Are they right?

What scientific research did you do to come to the conclusion that fetuses aren't alive? And at what point in their gestation do they suddenly 'become alive?'

Please share.

Peoples opinion on black people, and women in America are pretty different. But, just for fun, who doesn't think they're human?

It's my own opinion that fetus' aren't alive. When do they become alive? I like the Chinese standard, one breath outside of the womb they become "alive".

 

[fossten]

It's my own opinion that fetus' aren't alive. When do they become alive? I like the Chinese standard, one breath outside of the womb they become "alive".

Why do you like that standard? Does it make things more convenient for you if you can't keep your pecker in your pocket and you get a girl 'in trouble?'